Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. ICE

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

May 6, 2019

VAUGHN JOHNSON, Petitioner
v.
ICE, ET AL., Respondents

          DEE D. DRELL, JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          PEREZ-MONTES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amended Complaints (Docs. 10, 25) under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics[1] or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Plaintiff Vaughn Johnson (“Johnson”) (#A096335944). At the time of filing, Johnson was an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”) incarcerated at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.

         Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over Johnson's claims, his Complaint and Amended Complaints (Docs. 1, 10, 25) should be DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Johnson was convicted of making a false statement on a passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. (No. 6:10-cr-238, M.D. Fla.). While on supervised release, Johnson again made a false statement on a passport application. (Case No. 6:15-cr-003, M.D. Fla.). Johnson was also convicted in the United States Virgin Islands of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Johnson v. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 13-cv-080, 2014 WL 1912355 (S.D. Ga. May 12, 2014).

         Johnson was ordered removed from the United States (Doc. 1-2, pp. 43-50) and has since been removed. Johnson challenges the legitimacy of the removal order. (Doc. 25, p. 20). Johnson also disputes the authority of DHS/ICE to issue detainers. (Doc. 25, p. 20).

         Johnson has previously raised these and similar allegations in petitions for writs of habeas corpus and “numerous motions seeking various forms of relief, ” Johnson v. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 5:13-cv-080, 2014 WL 1912355, *1 (S.D. Ga. May 12, 2014) (dismissing petition and denying “miscellaneous motions”), which included “numerous pages of rambling discussion” that made it “difficult to decipher [Johnson's] claims, ” Johnson v. United States, 6:16-cv-2167, Doc. 47, p. 3. See also Johnson v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 2:17-cv-0422, 2017 WL 4343083 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2017) (denying petition, motions to amend, and emergency motions); Johnson v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 6:17-cv-1911, M.D. Fla. (denying Emergency Motion for U.S. True Identity, Nationality and Biometric Official Verification Evidentiary Hearing and for Equal Protection); Johnson v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 6:15-cv-1102, M.D. Fla. (denying petition and terminating five miscellaneous motions). In this Court alone, Johnson has previously filed three civil actions, all of which were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (1:18-cv-1427; 1:18-cv-1484; 1:19-cv-160).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Johnson's Complaint is subject to preliminary screening.

         Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Johnson's Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides for sua sponte dismissal of a complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

         B. The Court lacks jurisdiction over challenges to Johnson's removal order and detainers.

         Johnson seeks an order to enjoin his removal and to reinstate his Florida driver's license. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute....” Kokkonen v. Guardian LifeIns. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The burden of establishing a federal court's jurisdiction rests upon the party that invokes jurisdiction. See Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou-Con Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 2002) (per ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.